I spent some time looking for panorama-related apps for the iPhone and came up with the following:

• Panorama by Airshed
• Panoramas by Helix Interactive
• TripStitch by Byteslice Software
• Pano by Debacle Software
• Panoramascope by Phil Endicott
• PanoLab and PanoLab Pro by Originate Lab

I’ve actually played with PanoLab a bit (landscape, portrait) after seeing p0ps Harlow using it.

The Canon 50mm f0.95 is the stuff of legend. Sure it wasn’t particularly sharp, and depth of field was so short that you’re unlikely to get an entire face in focus, but the notion of a lens that bright is more than a little attractive (even if you’re unlikely to have enough light to focus at all if you’re in a situation where you need the f0.95 maximum aperture).

So the announcement of a new 50mm f0.95 lens, this time from Leica and with sharper optics, is probably an angel song to some. It’s a little spendy for me to put on my lens lust list, but it’s good to know such a lens exists.

original_ann’s hacked-together rig for shooting though the viewfinder of her Kodak Starflex has me wanting one. She has a beautiful set and points to the Through The Viewfinder group for more.

This light-piped ring flash should do the trick. It’s gotta be cheaper than Canon’s offering (though cheap ring lights can be had for under $100), and it seems to work more than well enough.

The Aiptek GO-HD isn’t such a bad camera for the money. It does 720p video and 8 megapixel photos, but the lens doesn’t go very wide. But a post in the Flickr blog pointed to a solution: use a door peephole as a fisheye lens. It works, but holding the peephole in front of the camera can get tiresome. Here’s how I solved it:

A rubber stopper easily holds the peephole, while a 1.25 inch hole in the stopper slides over the lens protrusion and holds snugly to it. Here’s the step by step:

Start with the parts. I’ve got an electric drill and a number of bits at the house, but I had to go to the store for the 1.25 inch drill bit. I also don’t have large rubber stoppers or peepholes laying around, so I picked those up too.

The hardest part (well, the only part) is drilling the two concentric holes, making sure they’re centered and straight through. My drill has a bubble level to make this easier.

My 1.25 inch bit had a screw-type guide in the center, making it easier to drill the larger hole first.

The larger hole fits snugly around the lens, the smaller hole holds the peephole.

Here is the camera before and after attaching the fisheye. The rubber stopper fits snugly, but is easy to attach and remove.

In use, I find I have to zoom to its maximum telephoto setting. The circular peephole view almost fills the width of the 16×9 frame that way, though it crops quite a bit of the top and bottom.

I didn’t have Sandee to chase around the house after finishing this, so I had to test it on myself and my cat:

I have an old Lensbaby 2.0 (looks like this) that does a great job of making casual snapshots look like real portraits. But I also find it really difficult to get focus on my subject. Blame my bad eyes, my insistence on using it wide open with it’s shallowest depth of field, and simply sloppiness, but I can’t do it.

This new Lensbaby Composer with a sort of normal focus ring (rather than flexible bellows), might work a little better. And the idea is appealing enough that I’m now lusting for it about as much as I’m drooling over these.

Cool Lensbaby Composer photo above by Dan Catt.

Digital Photography Review’s look of Sigma’s 50mm f/1.4 has me drooling. I have an el cheapo 50mm f/1.8 and am looking to upgrade. At $1500, Canon’s 50mm f/1.2 is just way too expensive, but their 50mm f/1.4 just didn’t seem to be enough of a upgrade to be worth the price. Sigma’s new lens, seems to do it.

I stumbled into that lens, however, as I was looking up Canon’s EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I’ve had my eye on it for a while because I’m a fan of primes and in need of a macro, but that’s no reason not to look elsewhere. I quickly found the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 “macro” zoom. My preference to primes doesn’t blind me to the fact that a long-ish prime costs more than a decent used car, so Tamron’s promise of 200mm at f2.8 for under $700 seemed like a deal. Digital Photography Review entry on it is pretty good, too, but does reveal the reason I had to put “macro” in quotes above: the closest focus is only about 1 meter. And that review pointed me to another, this time for Sigma’s 70-200mm f/2.8 “macro” zoom. Like the Tamron, that lens isn’t really a macro by my definition, but it performs a little better in other respects. DPReview compared them both against Canon’s $1,500 optically stabilized EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM, but a fairer comparison is against the non-stabilized version, which is priced much closer to the Sigma and Tamron units.

Flickr blog I discovered the Peephole fish eye group. The idea is simple: us a $5 door peephole to give your camera a fisheye lens. Here are the instructions:

1. Hold peephole against rim of camera lens.
2. Set camera to “macro”. (the image is actually displayed on the inside face of the convex lens of the peephole. The camera must focus on the foreground image rather than the background image.)
3. Zoom in to the point that the viewable “circle” is framed almost evenly.
4. For best results, brighter lighting will avoid unwanted noise (grain)
5. Enjoy and have fun.

You can buy a pricier model with the Lomo label on it (and if you go looking, you’ll find a “peephole reverser” which is probably useless for your photography…probably). Henry Gordon Dietz offers a lot more info.

Above is my first experiment with a peephole fisheye and my cheap video camera.

I so want one of these sweet Draganflyer X6 helicopters. The two pound powerhouse can carry up to one pound of camera equipment, carrying it smooth enough to get decent video and stills.

More videos are at the Dragonfly website, including one which supposedly demonstrates that it’s quiet enough for wildlife photo work (scroll down and look for “hawk”). Who knows how much it costs, but I requested a quote. Anybody want to guess the price?

Extra: MIT’s take on helicopter surveillance.

(Via)

Amanda Mooney posted a note about being told she needed corporate permission to take a picture in a store. Mooney’s interest was in telling others how much she likes the products and the brand — exactly the sort of word of mouth advertising most brands are anxious for, but imagine some more pedestrian uses: what about the customer who wants a friend’s opinion about a new skirt? Can that customer snap a cell phone pic to send?

Meanwhile, Bruce Schneier reports on increasing limits to photography in public spaces and the supposed link between terrorist threats and photography. It’s nonsense, he says, but the trend is increasing.

Taking and sharing pictures builds community. Flickr knows this. Facebook, with more than 14 million photo uploads daily, knows this. What exactly are public officials and sales executives worried about?

(photo credit: Xava du)

I’ve been following Ásmundur’s use of multi-exposure HDR for a while, but today I discovered Max Chu’s use of an older, more crafty technique: black card mask. The photo below show’s Ásmundur’s multiple photo technique, but that above is Chu’s. How he do it? Apparently it’s about the same as dodging a photo in the dark room: simply block the light with a card or your hand.

Extra: Paul Butzi’s thoughts on dodging and burning in the digital age.

I’m coming to learn that p0ps has a number of interesting things going on, but it was his panoramas stitched from pictures taken by iPhone that caught my attention first. Above is the J Train somewhere between Fulton and City Hall.

I’d thought the iPhone’s camera was pretty decent, p0ps’ work shows it off.

J Train, panorama, p0ps, photo, iPhone

Above, one of Sandge’s contributions to the The Toy Cameras Pool reminds us that good photography is something that often happens despite the equipment, not because of it.

Of course, no sweeping generalization can go without argument, and in this case I think the toy camera enthusiasts would be joined by the glitch art aficionados, like RoninVision, who apparently made a mistake while scanning to give us this:

Most people may recognize Zhang Huan from his “My New York” work that had him dressed in a beefy muscle suit. Above is “My Boston,” but I have a feeling it might get repurposed elsewhere during finals this spring to represent the agony of study.

Ups to Ryan for the pointer.

art, book, books, boston, fine art, head in books, my boston, photography, zhang huan

Ben Apfelbaum died before having the chance to see it all come together, but his quirky idea seems to be a hit. Here’s how Jerry Cullum described it for the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

“The Ben Show” was the brainchild of beloved Spruill Gallery director Ben Apfelbaum, who asked one day, “What’s in a name?” and proceeded to track down a host of artists named “Ben.”

Well, actually, he asked, “Is the use of a given name as a thematic device as useful as any other thematic device to create an art exhibition of interest?”

Photographer and friend Troy Bennett stands among fellow artists Ben Boutin, Benita Carr, Ben Smith, Candice Bennett, Ben Wilson, Ben Fain, Marianne Weinberg-Benson, Lloyd Benjamin and Ben Apfelbaum (a different Ben Apfelbaum), and others. Jerry Cullum’s coverage of the opening mentioned Troy’s work — selections from his “Above and Below” series (image above):

His color photos look like bodies turning into flame, as in a mystical Bill Viola video. They’re actually unmanipulated images of a swimmer and an underwater pool light.

Find it at the Spruill Gallery, Atlanta.

Atlanta, Atlanta GA, Georgia, Troy, Troy Bennet, Ben Apfelbaum, photography, art, gallery, show, Ben Show, what’s in a name, art, art gallery, Spruill Gallery, Spruill Center for the Arts, arts

Regarding nudity in photographs posted to Flickr, dancharvey says:

Honestly, I’m more concerned about all the cats and flowers. Cliche is more damaging than breasts. Your opinion may vary.

nudity, censorship, flickr, photo, photography, top-v, argument, cliche, reason

Rochelle worries that all this Library 2.0 talk is lost on her library. Ross tells us why he hates the Library 2.0 meme and Dan reminds us it’s not about buzzwords. But Michael is getting closest to a point that’s been troubling me for a while: Library 2.0 isn’t about software, it’s about libraries. It’s about the evolution of all of our services to meet the needs of our users.

Let me step back a bit.

Before the development of the camera, illustrative painting and portraiture was a trade on par with carpentry and masonry. But as photography became a reality, painters found themselves in a quandary. Many said that those early black and white photos were inferior to large and colorful portraits on canvas, but the photos were quicker, cheaper, and offered a scientific representation of reality that suited the times. And so painting, having lost its relevancy as a form of documentary reality, became art. As art, it exploded with new non-representational forms and styles (plot the timeline of the impressionists against a timeline of photography), and became collectable.

Our perspective prevents us from seeing the turmoil of those times, but let me try apply that lesson to libraries today.

We have two choices. We can continue to operate by the old rules and hope that we find wealthy patrons to support us as symbols of the wealth and refinement of our communities. But, if we look hard, I think we’ll find that we can apply the core values of librarianship to new current technologies and new service models, and rather than becoming a sort of art, we will be valued for serving the needs of our communities.

library, libraries, library 2.0, library20, art, challenge, photography, web 2.0, web20, future

Memepool introduced me to camera tossing at Flickr, where there’s even a group for those who are willing to risk their camera for a chance at a shot of streaky lights. But not everybody tosses in the dark, it’s turned out to be a a new fad in self-portraiture.

Click through for credits and more info on the photos above.

tags: blur, blurry picture, blurry pictures, camera, camera killer, camera toss, camera tossing, cameratoss, cameratossing, dangerous (to your camera), fad, flickr, memepool, photo, photos

The Olympus C8080, one of the best digital cameras ever, can be had for under $500, refurbished, from some sellers on Amazon. That’s about where the price/features ratio against the C7000 I was excited about last week tips strongly in favor of the C8080.

I might get into why I’m not excited about dSLRs in a later post, but I won’t deny that price is part of it. Still, I think even the most die-hard dSLR aficionado will agree the C8080 has a lot to love.

The question remains: will it replace the Olympus C4000 I’ve become so comfortable with? I think so.

tags: digital camera, giddiness, new camera, new gadget, new gadgets, olympus c4000, olympus c7000, olympus c8080, olympus camera

My Olympus C4000 is hard to beat. Steve’s Digicams reviewed it well, and many friends with newer cameras find features or capabilities in it they miss on theirs. So, despite my schoolboy giddiness at the arrival of new gadgets, I’m waiting to be convinced that my new C7000 will replace it. It too was well reviewed, and already I can see that it addresses some of my few complaints about the C4000, but transitions like this take time.

…And, I might still be in love with the Olympus C8080. The 8080 has a very wide lens with a lot of glass up front. It was the camera Olympus made when they weren’t worried about making room for DSLRs, so it has a lot of pro features.

tags: digital camera, giddiness, new camera, new gadgets, olympus c4000, olympus c7000, olympus c8080, olympus camera, steves digicams

I actually like the look of a broken panorama, where the borders of each photo are clearly visible — even emphasized. But last night I got the notion of doing a seamless pano and found DoubleTake, a $12 shareware app that makes the process pretty darn easy. The sunrise shot above (larger sizes) was my first crack at it, but I was so sure I’d use it again (and again) that I’ve already registered it.

I’ve got more panoramas at Flickr. I still like the broken panorama effect, but I see a few compositions that I might re-do as seamless.

tags: borders, doubletake, edges, mac os x, pano, panorama, panoramic, panoramic photos, photography, seamless, seamless panorama, seamless stitching, shareware, software, sunrise

My friend Troy keeps a studio at Saltworks, a combined gallery and studio space in Atlanta where Prema Murthy just opened her deStructures show. I was in Atlanta to see Troy and family, so the opening was added sugar, and quite a pleasure.

The image above comes from Troy’s Above and Below series.

tags: above, above and below, art, art opening, atlanta, below, destructures, gallery, georgia, photography, photo, prema murthy, saltworks, studio, troy, troy bennett

I stumbled upon captnkurt’s Information Nation where he popped a link over to Eric Myer’s Stereotypes. The gimic — and it’s a fun one — is that you can mix and match bits of faces. I don’t know why I like the combo above so much, but, anyway.

The thing about this is that it reminds me of Troy Bennett’s Human-IntoFace, reported here back in 2002 and 2004.

Separately, I need to go back and take another look at captnkurt’s story about CouchSurfing.

blog, blogspot, couchsurfing, eric meyer, faces, mix and match, photography, stereotypes, troy bennett

At least that’s the only thing a person can conclude from the stories at Copyfight earlier this week. This post reports on two stories where the photo services concluded that the photos to be printed were too good to have come from an average customer. Upon trying to order prints of her child, one Ofoto user found the following:

Your order has been cancelled because it appears your order contains one of the following… 1. Professional images.

And Wal Mart told another mother:

We can’t release the pictures to you without a copyright release form signed by the photographer.

At least Ofoto gave the mother the opportunity to sign an affidavit warranting that she was the photographer or had permission from the copyright owner. Wal Mart wouldn’t even accept that.

So, like I noted in the headline: Professionals apparently don’t use Ofoto or Wal Mart. I wonder if they promote that as a selling point…

Seltzer’s post notes the new copyright warning that Canon is putting in their camera manuals and the trouble that the developers of the open-source Gallery image management software project found themselves in recently.

Technorati Tags: camera, canon, copyright, copyrights, gallery, legal, legal trouble, ofoto, photo, photo services, photofinishing, photograph, photography, professional images, unintended consequences, wal mart, wendy seltzer

Henri Lartigue’s photo of a race car shows one of the wonderful ways in which the camera records its own reality. Spectators lean left while the speeding car tilts right all because of some facts about how his camera works. Lartigue’s camera had a focal plane shutter, a two-part light curtain that slides to one side to expose the film while the second part follows a moment behind to again block the light. While slow exposures might allow one curtain to open fully before the second closes, fast exposures require both to be in motion at once, often exposing only a tiny slit of the film at any moment while they travel across the frame. The result is that each bit of film represents a slightly different moment in time. In the picture above, the curtains moved from bottom to top. The race car tilts to the right because the car itself moved quite quickly compared to the curtains. The spectators lean to the right because Lartigue was panning the camera from left to right to follow the race (though he clearly wasn’t panning fast enough to keep the car in the center of the frame throughout the exposure).

RIT’s Andrew Davidhazy appears to be quite a fan this distortion, which is often called “slit-scan photography” when used creatively. The shutter curtains on new cameras often move too fast to reveal much distortion, so he built an add-on that would help him get the slit-scan effect.

Besides being fast, most modern film cameras shutter curtains now travel horizontally, rather than vertically. This changed orientation limits our ability to see any distortion, as most fast motion is also horizontal (the effect on Lartigue’s car would have been everything getting slightly wider or narrower).

What amuses me, however, is that digital cameras are bringing this type of distortion back.

A digital camera’s imaging element, either a CCD or CMOS sensor, is made up of pixels that are organized into horizontal lines that are then stacked to make a picture. And the camera takes the picture by reading each pixel from left to right, line by line, from top top bottom. In the end, pixel number one in the upper left corner of the frame is sampled long before pixel five million in the lower right. Sure, the whole process is usually done fast, very fast, but it’s not fast enough to keep these helicopter rotor blades from looking bent. The camera in my Clie has a particularly slow scan rate, making it easy to lean cars sideways. I took advantage of the effect for a self portrait when I wanted to blur my office in the background.